Obamas tax plan

[hoodonit00]

Because Palin is hot. Some would say MILFy. I would be a member of the aforementioned "some" faction. In fact, I'd say she looks like a for-hire secretary stripper.

Oh bull^^^^. She is drawing big crowds because she is the "true conservative"that Republicans have been craving since Ronald Reagan. She's pro-gun, pro-religion,anti-abortion,pro-drill for oil now, and she doesn't apologize for it. I would gladly vote for her over Obama or Biden.

 

[hoodonit00]

Thought I would post this as I'm not sure anyone was going to the link. This was in the Wall Street Journal.


What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.

What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.

Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.

Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.

The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.

The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.

Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.

Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[tomandshell]

Knowing all the people who maintain that the media is biased towards Obama, I got a kick out of this article that details his plans to return the favor:

If Barack Obama is elected president next month, news organizations will have to pay $715 for each correspondent or crew member attending his victory celebration, according to ChicagoBusiness.com. They could pay as much as $1100 more if electrical and phone lines have to be installed for them, the website said. In addition they will be charged $935 for admission to the "press file" tent. News organizations are likely to file a protest.

 

[Mesa]

There's so much shady "business"/"political" activities that took place under Obama while he was Senator of Illinois. No one will listen to it, so I won't bother posting links, even if provoked, cause no one here is going to change their mind. But he has absolutely NO problem running crooked deals to acheive his goals. I think same could be said of G. W. Bush Jr. as well, but not to this level. I'll just wait while the future slowly let's it unfold and wait for the public to hopefully, finally react.

 

[RoboDad]

Knowing all the people who maintain that the media is biased towards Obama, I got a kick out of this article that details his plans to return the favor:

Well, I don't know that this information proves or disproves any bias. However, if/when they happily pony up the fees he's asking, I think it will prove it to a few more people.

But, in an effort to steer things to a happier place (hey, come on now, it's SPOOKTACULAR TIME, people!), I give you this snapshot from the rehearsal for a very special performance on next week's episode of Dancing with the Stars:

 

[tomandshell]

Never thought I'd see that!!!

 

[Mesa]

I'm now hearing on the news that Joe Biden made some comment about lowering the $250,000 figure to $150,000 for increased taxes. Wish I could provide a link, but I don't think it's hit the internet just yet. But it will, by end of day.

So, first it was if you make more than $250,000, then readjusted that if you're single the figure is $200,000. And now Biden is dropping it to $150,000. Keep it up guys, soon we'll all be equal, and all be in the lower class.

 

[hoodonit00]

I'm now hearing on the news that Joe Biden made some comment about lowering the $250,000 figure to $150,000 for increased taxes. Wish I could provide a link, but I don't think it's hit the internet just yet. But it will, by end of day.

So, first it was if you make more than $250,000, then readjusted that if you're single the figure is $200,000. And now Biden is dropping it to $150,000. Keep it up guys, soon we'll all be equal, and all be in the lower class.

If this is true, then it is happening a lot faster then I thought it would.

 

[creature4000]

No.. they wait till they're in office before they drop that bomb!

 

[carbo-fation]

 

[Darklord Dave]

https://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

$150,000 VS. $250,000
Posted: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 11:33 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Economy, Biden, McCain, Obama
From NBC's Mark Murray and NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
The McCain campaign is jumping all over Biden's interview yesterday with a Scranton TV affiliate, in which Biden said that people making under $150,000 per year would get a tax cut under Obama's tax plan.

McCain even mentioned it during his speech today in Pennsylvania, noting all the different numbers Obama and his campaign are citing on the tax issue. “Sen. Obama has made a lot of promises," the Arizona senator said in remarks his campaign passed around to reporters. "First, he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan. Then this weekend, he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than 200,000 dollars you'll benefit. But yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Sen, Biden said tax relief should only go to 'middle class people -- people making under 150,000 dollars a year.' It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can't let that happen.”


Video: John McCain slams Barack Obama's plans to "spread the wealth," raise taxes and limit opportunities rather than create new wealth for Americans, and make everyone successful.

Biden aides say his comments were actually consistent with Obama's tax plan -- people under $150,000 get a cut, and people making up to $250,000 stay the same.
Indeed, here's what Obama said at the Saddleback forum in August: "What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase."

*** UPDATE *** An Obama aide points out to First Read that the $150,000 figure Biden was citing was simply an example of what someone making that amount would get under Obama's tax plan. Indeed, Biden's $150,000 remark came after he referred to someone making $1.4 million.

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

 

[Bannister]

https://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/28/1600845.aspx

I bet tons of rich folk are going to try making only $603,000 or 2.86 million.

 

[LChinoz]

https://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127

 

[Brent72]

I'm now hearing on the news that Joe Biden made some comment about lowering the $250,000 figure to $150,000 for increased taxes. Wish I could provide a link, but I don't think it's hit the internet just yet. But it will, by end of day.

So, first it was if you make more than $250,000, then readjusted that if you're single the figure is $200,000. And now Biden is dropping it to $150,000. Keep it up guys, soon we'll all be equal, and all be in the lower class.

I heard about that Biden comment earlier today as well. This just keeps getting better and better.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I bet tons of rich folk are going to try making only $603,000 or 2.86 million.

Since it's based on net income, I know I'll be struggling to find that one last deduction that will get me below $603,403.

 

[EVILFACE]

Yea, 94K is a lot of money to give away for hand outs to freeloaders.

 

[RED5150]

You think once Sideshow gets busted we'll be able to afford their figures, or
it will mean the end to more lines or they will just start import only ?
I'm pretty sure it will effect them. I'm glad the tax plans don't effect me.

 

[customizerwannabe]

If you're a gun enthusiast at all better buy now before Robbing Hood takes them too.

 

[Mesa]

If you're a gun enthusiast at all better buy now before Robbing Hood takes them too.

I'm seriously considering it. I never wanted to own a gun before, but once my right to own a firearm comes into question, I feel compelled to get one.

Probably purchase within a month or two, already talking with a buddy that is a gun head to go to shooting range and trying out a bunch of handguns to see what I like and can handle.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I have no fear that handguns will be outlawed, but given the economic conditions nowadays I was considering getting one. Gotta protect the collectibles somehow.